It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I've participated in several of these discussions before. And never, and I mean never, has any Creationist on this board ever challenged the evidence which I presented with credible, reproducible, validated evidence confirming their beliefs.
They ignore the hard evidence like the plague because they can't refute it. So that's why I posted the challenge again - to debate any aspect of Creationist theory from the viewpoint of validated scientific evidence.




posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Experiments fail all the time. Old knowledge is replaced with new knowledge. In the lab there's a mantra that is well known:
"99% of all experiments are relegated to File 13. It's the 1% that we're looking for".

Science is about discovery. It's pragmatic, objective and will argue a topic until some level of "truth" is known. Debate and discussion, challenging the known facts, working on a new theory or replacing an old one - this is what it's about. It's a process not a dictatorship where a truth is proclaimed and never questioned again.

And that's why I challenge these Creationists to debate their "evidence". But the fact remains, that not a single one on this board has been able to do so.

The challenge remains open to any who want to step up to the plate.




edit on 20-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I think it's a good idea. Thanks for bringing it up. Now it's up to borntowatch to agree.

Also, I'd like to say that the debate is not about insulting, criticizing or otherwise attacking the other party. The debate is about presenting and challenging evidence on both sides. The outcome should be that both parties learn something about the other and about the topic.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
You might want to put your package together and put it on the board to be analyzed . Then after it's been looked at ,if there was any errors they could be addressed .That seems to be the way it's done in the scientific field .Well sometimes it is and other times it's not . Not releasing data and codes and obscuring methods used is common actually .I used to think it wasn't really that bad but it goes on and magazines , journals and universities can get caught up in politics . a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Not quite sure what you mean. Borntowatch hasn't selected a topic yet to discuss. When and if she selects a topic, then I'll make an initial presentation.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Cool .It will be interesting to see how this goes and if it has any educational value .I am sometimes amazed at the shear amounts of knowledge we have come to recognize but am still more amazed at how little we know .I would seem that getting all the science worked out right here on earth is a big work in process so imagining we might know about the cosmos makes me quite skeptical on that front. a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Now if a person would or could suspend their present beliefs for a moment and take the time to consider the scientific experiments noted in this vid and consider that if a university does not speak about them there may be some other element at work . Smart people have done experiments in the past that have later on when revisited shown to not support their original hypothesis . That is what science is all about I guess .



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



Agreeing. Thing about Churchianity that cracks me up is their insistence that any/all spirit activity is of the devil.

Old power trip to keep control over seekers. Only look to the church for guidance… be sure to "donate" when the plate comes around.


I'm super suprised at your nonsense here. We usually see
things eye to eye and to be so far away on this issue really
doesn't make any sense to me. It could only be bias.

I'll take you on OP any of my worst dying days.

START HERE>



edit on Ram122014v502014u28 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Give us a tl;dr backed up with appropriate academic sources. I'm not sitting through some 25 minute unsourced youtube video that quotes the bible from the get go.

Otherwise, I refute your video with this video. And no, unless you watch the whole video your opinion is not valid:




posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

The point I'm trying to get across to you is that, like in the link I provided, NO Evidence regardless of how factual and verifiable it may be will be accepted or even considered by borntowatch.

His/Her tactic of debate is to simply deny any and all science as being true, meanwhile repeating his/her own opinions as truth.

You cannot debate anything when someone simply refuses any and all evidence opposed to their personal opinions. That link I provided earlier has gone on page after page of it without any progress.

I don't doubt you have a very solid argument with supporting evidence. But what difference does it make to someone who won't accept any of it as valid???



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1



Hawaiian mythology states that Maui, a demigod, his mother was upset with the Sun. It was flying across the sky so fast that she couldn't dry her Tapa cloths before it was dark and damp.

So Maui made a rope out of Ti leaves and roped the Sun, stalling in its place. The Sun was very angry with Maui, and started spitting and threatening Maui, but he kept a strong hold over it with his demigod strength and Ti leaf rope!

Finally the Sun was exhausted and asked Maui what he wanted of him. Maui and the Sun made a deal that the sun could fly fast through the sky for half of the year and other half he would tarry, taking his time so that Maui's mother could get her work done!

Sounds legit. Thanks Maui!



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.

—Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary aether.[A 5] In addition, the Michelson–Morley null result was further substantiated by the null results of other second-order experiments of different kind, namely the Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) and the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902–1904). These problems and their solution led to the development of the Lorentz transformation and special relativity.
en.wikipedia.org...
_________________

It's an interesting topic. The experiment has been repeated several times with similar results as above. Bowden seems to be able to draw absolute conclusions about the experiment and it's implications without ever picking up a pencil and writing out the equations to support his position. Quantum theory would say that anything is possible, but the probability is so low as to be zero.

But this thread is not about quantum theory, gravitational waves or dark energy. Back on topic.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I understand your point. My point is that the challenge is open to anyone - not just borntowatch. I don't expect borntowatch to respond any time soon!!



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Not sure what you want to discuss or debate?



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

The scientific evidence supporting the theory that conjectural aliens are in fact messengers from a conjectural Satan — I think. There will be conjectural angels dancing on the heads of conjectural pins. At least I hope there will be.


edit on 20/12/14 by Astyanax because: of conjectural typographies.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423





Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking





Atheists Say God Does not Exist, So Let's Stop Looking.





edit on 20-12-2014 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

We've sent robots to mars and asteroids to look for life, what experiment do you propose to objectively produce evidence for god? Go get some data and we'll listen. Until then, it's nothing but hot air.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: randyvs

Not sure what you want to discuss or debate?





Huh, then I guess I don't either!



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




We've sent robots to mars and asteroids to look for life, what experiment do you propose to objectively produce evidence for god? Go get some data and we'll listen. Until then, it's nothing but hot air.



What did you find on Mars, hot air or cold air?



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
It would seem to me that the evolution side of the debate is convinced that the shear numbers make it so . So why spend all this money to look for what you believe is so ? Do you need to convince yourselves ? Or do you need proof to be convinced ? Just curious .



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join